Again, I think we need to clarify the meaning of "manipulation" in this context -- I get the impression that the title of this thread uses the word to mean a disingenuous or dishonest approach to characterization and drama, as opposed to the natural, benign manipulation storytellers use to create a fictional dynamic.
One is a multi-level lie, while the other is just good plotting.
Most of early-to-mid DALLAS, most of KNOTS, the first three seasons of FALCON CREST, and S1 and S2 and S9 of DYNASTY, were all pretty good storytelling, and whatever manipulations used by the producers to create them just involved the skillful arts of good fiction. Which aren't a lie per se, because the audience is in on it.
On the other hand, Season 3 thru 8 of DYNASTY, and almost all of LITTLE HOUSE, are indeed manipulative -- in the negative sense -- because they're trying to sell you a bill of goods which is totally dishonest even within the context of something that is already fiction.
Late DALLAS, and the last half (at least) of FALCON CREST are just crappy --- they're not even manipulative; they're just pointlessly silly.
Since I'm the original poster of this thread, I'll address what I mean, which I think is basically what Snarky very well stated.
It's all fiction,of course, but it becomes dishonest when trying to get the audience to feel a very specific way about a situation takes precedence over plot and characterization. This has been done on shows in subtle and not so subtle ways. The "Very Special Episodes" of 1980's sitcoms during sweeps months are the most obvious.
In Dynasty season 1 the Krystle, Matthew, Claudia triangle was presented honestly, if I recall it correctly. They were three adults who were basically all good people, but all had committed adultry. Krystle wasn't presented as the saint who had an epic love for Prince Charming Matthew. Claudia wasn't a caricature of a person struggling with a mental illness. A serious storyline was given to the viewer and we were left to have a serious reaction to it in a whatever way we wanted. We weren't pushed to take sides. Later in the series the show seemed to blast the viewer with, "Krystle is the heroine of the show! She is all good and pure!" This was done in a clunky, poorly written manner, but that's the message. It's dishonest in how I see the term because the show is telling me to feel something very specific that isn't entirely true.(She had an affair with a married man whose wife was hospitalized.)
The show did the same with Jeff. He was presented as one of the "good guys," when the truth is, while he wasn't evil, he was kind of a dirtbag and a womanizer.
I'll throw out another example involving the contentious issue of abortion. Hollywood is vastly on the "left" of this issue. There are several examples when it isn't just presented and the viewer may decide for themselves how they feel about the scenario on the program, but they must feel a certain, very narrow way. For example, there is an episode of "Cagney and Lacy" that addresses that issue. Pro- choice characters are reasonable and intelligent. The main proponent of the pro-life side was a hypocritical, alcohol Irishman who seemed brought on just to present that side of the issue.
The famous episode of "Maude" in which the eponymous character has an abortion is so heavy handed in its viewpoint it sounds as if the characters were reading from Planned Parenthood literature, not as real people would speak regardless of their views. Indeed they might as well have been because as it turns out, a pro-choice group paid the show to do that episode, which came several months before the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision.
Honest depictions of people reacting to that subject were actually on "Dallas" and "Knots Landing." When Lucy has an abortion after she is raped, she reacts, Pam reacts, and Bobby gives his opinion when Pam tells him about it. The viewer is left to decide how they feel about it and the characters. When Jenna is contemplating aborting Bobby's baby, Ray and Donna discuss it, taking different sides. Ray is the pro-choice side, Donns more towards the pro-life side. It fit their characters and it wasn't some heavy handed "All people who feel uncomfortable with abortion are ignorant, old white men" nonsense. Even Pam's role in that storyline is good because it has levels to it the viewer may feel good, bad or anywhere in between if they want. A person could be more pro life, but still not love what Pam was doing.
On KL, Karen and Laura both grapple with the issue and it's done in a way that is true to their characters, yet I don't feel as if I'm hearing a politician lecture me. Based on things I've read David Jacobs say about himself and Karen, I'm reasonably sure where he stands on the issue, but I never felt the show wanted a specific reaction from the viewer.
That's how I see the concept of a television show being dishonest and manipulative.
